CIGARETTES SOLD

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17125, 4 December 1929, Page 12

CIGARETTES SOLD

AFTER-HOUR TRADING CONFECTIONERS FINED “You’ve got to do it—it' you don’t sell them youe customers will go elsewhere/’ was the remark made by one of three confectioners who were lined by Mr. i\ 11. Harper, S.M., in the 'Magistrate’s Court to-day for selling cigarettes after 6 'p.m. The relieving inspector of factories, Mr. B. Rawlins, who is a stranger in Gisborne, called ut the defendants’ premises and purchased cigarettes from them one evening last' month, and as the result of his visit C. Jiathsach, H. B. Gardner, and 11. ilallivvell all pleaded guilty in the court this morning, to charges of failing to close their shops at 6 p.m. according to the gazetted requisition by the Gisborne tobacconists, and with failing to notify the inspector that they stocked and sold cigarettes. Mr. Rawlins prosecuted, and Mr. E. T. Brosnahan appeared on behalf of Gardner, and Mr. J). E. Clirisp on helm) f of Rathsaeh, Halliwell not being represented by counsel. Mr. Rawlins explained that Gardner, who was a first offender, conducted a fruit and confectionery business, and was entitled to remain open until any hour. However, he also stocked and sold cigarettes, and the • section of the Act under which the information was laid required him to close his shop, at the same time as the tobacconists, ihe speaker visited the shop, and found that cigarettes were sold, and the shop was not olosed at the required hour. Mr Brosnahan pointed out that it was only on account of the fact that the defendant sold cigarettes that lie came within the provisions of the section as to closing. Most of the fruiterers m Gisborne were forced into keeping a small stock of cigarettes for the convenience oil their customers, who it they could not purchase them there would transfer their patronage elsewhere, the fruiterers were really between the devil and the deep sea, and in a sense their customers were more to blame than tlicv It was very difficult for them to know what to. do in these days of keen competition between the sma that Rathsach’s position was exactly similar to that as set out by Mr. Brosnahan. It was an extremely difficult position, and the coin fee tinners were put to the election of selline cigarettes or losing then custom. He was not suggesting that no conviction should be entered, but he would submit that in the case ol a first ofender the facts as outlined should be taken into consideration. Die second charge was laid solely because the defendant sold a few odd cigarettes. “UNWARRANTED COMPETITION.” The magistrate said lie appreciated the remarks that had been made, but pointed out that it was bard tv fair to the tobacconists who had to dose at 6 p.m. if they bad to contend with this unwarranted competition. Mr. Clirisp agreed that with the law aR it now stood the defendants had done wrong, but he submitted that they were more or less forced into it. The magistrate: They only keep the stock for 1 lie convenience of their customers. hut they are committing a breach of the Act. , Mr. Brosnahan pointed out that a requisition of two-thirds of the tobacconists was all that was required, so that two-thirds of the tobacconists controlled the whole position, shopkeepers and all. Mix L. T. Burnard, who appeared for a defendant in a later case of a similar nature, explained that if two-tmrds ot the tobacconists decided to close at a certain time, all others selling cigarettes or tobacco must close that time also. The defendant Halliwell said it was not his usual practice to sell cigarettes, but he kept a few packets for the convenience of his permanent customers. When the inspector called he showed him all lie had—about 16 packets. . “There seems to he a certain amount of hardship on the owncis of small shops,” said the magistrate. “At the same time a technical breach of the Act has been committed, and they must, he convicted. As they are' first offenders, each of the defendants will be fined £1 and costs on the first charge, and will be ordered to pay costs on the second,” CHARGES DENIED Similar charges against 0. Harrison were denied by the defendant, for whom Mr. L. T. Burnard appeared.

The inspector stated in evidence that at 10.45 p.m. he called at the defendant’s dairy' and confectionery shop, and purchased a packet of cigarettes. No notice had been received at witness’ office that the defendant stocked and sold cigarettes.

Mr. Burnard: The cigarettes were not in the shop at all, and he went out to the kitchen to get them? Witness: He went to the hack premises. Mr. Burnard submitted that there was no case to answer. The Act ap plied only to a special type of premises where smoking requisites were habitually sold, ami which had to bo closed, at a certain hour. The sale of one packet of cigarettes would mot constitute a shop in which they were habitually sold, and it might easily happen that to oblige a customer the proprietor would sell him a [jacket of his own cigarettes. The defendant resided on the promises, and went to his living rooms to get the cigarettes. Counsel submitted that the. prosecution had not proved that it was a shop in which smoking requisites were sold. The magistrate said the whole question hinged on whether the defendant’s shop came within the definition of the section —a shop in which cigarotes were sold —and whether the sale jo tin 1 inspector constituted an admission Unit they were sold. He was not prepared to give his decision until he had looked into the matter. Decision was reserved.